I agree with alex here.
To just step in front of a camera and say "no plane hit the towers" would be idiotic. But if someone would care to present an hardhitting and easy-to-understand overview of the argument, it would be a totally different case.
Personally I would avoid terms like butterplanes and whatitz, since my PERSONAL experience is, that these terms make people NOT want to look at the evidence, just like screaming IDIOT at someone, probably isn´t the best way to make them consider your point, but I guess this is a matter of taste?
Best,
Peter Kofod, Denmark
alexldent <alexldent@yahoo.com> skrev:
alexldent <alexldent@yahoo.com> skrev:
Obviously I'm not Rosalee, and you asked her-- but, I wouldn't mind if
he did this and backed it up with a proper analysis. If you just SAY
that "there was no plane crash and that the planes hitting the towers
were faked" of course it sounds crazy. But if one presented it
properly, I think it could be a very effective argument. The more I
look at these pictures of the WTC and the planes and then the
plane-shaped holes, the more bogus it looks.
The truth is the truth, and I don't like the idea of hiding the truth,
no matter how crazy it might initially sound.
> Do you really want Professor Jones to
> go on national TV and say that there was no plane crash and that the
> planes hitting the towers were faked and edited in later on
> videotape? What praytell would be the result of him taking that
> action? What good would it do our truth movement if people of Jones
> stature started doing things like that?
SPONSORED LINKS
| Government procurement | Government leasing | Government grants for women |
| Government lease | Government contract | Government money |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "911InsideJobbers" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
No comments:
Post a Comment